State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Cooperative Supply & ... vs Lakhpat Rai on 10 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 18.03.2009
Date of Decision: 10.09.2013
Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.,
Chandigarh through Law Officer.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
VERSUS
Lakhpat Rai son of Sh.Narsu Ram, son of Sh.Kanshi Ram, resident of
village Alamshah, Tehsil Fazilka now at Fazilka.
.....Respondent/Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 18.03.2009
Date of Decision: 10.09.2013
Lakhpat Rai aged 68 years S/o Sh.Narsu Ram S/o Kanshi Ram, R/o
Village Alamshah, Tehsil Fazilka, now at Fazilka.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation
Limited, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing
Director.
2. District Manager, Markfed, Ferozepur.
3. Manager, Markfed, Mahajan Market, Fazilka.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 2 of 10
First Appeals against the order
dated 20.1.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt.Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present in First Appeal No.338 of 2009:
For the appellant : Sh.N.S.Vashisht, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Rajesh Narang, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER
This order will dispose of the above referred appeals which have been preferred against the same impugned order dated 20.1.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Lakhpat Rai, complainant, was partly allowed and opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.22,500/- i.e. @ Rs.5,000/- per acre for 4 ½ acres as compensation to the complainant.
2. In the appeal preferred by the opposite parties (Firs Appeal No.338 of 2009), it has been prayed that this order be set aside whereas the complainant in his appeal (First Appeal No.336 of 2009) has made a prayer for the enhancement of compensation.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that in the month of May, 2006, the opposite parties allured the agriculturists into contract farming by promising them that they would get huge profit if they purchase the seed of Basmati Paddy, of PB-1121 variety (in short "the seed") by representing that "the seed" was of best and pure quality and would give yield of at least 24 cwts. per acre with further assurance that their First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 3 of 10 entire produce would be purchased @ Rs.1,250/- per cwt. The complainant had about 4½ acres of cultivable land in village Alamshah Tehsil Fazilka. On 1.6.2006, he purchased 30 kg. of the seed @ Rs.35/- per kg., in the form of three bags of 10 kg. each, alongwith a packet of Stretocycline @ Rs.30/- per packet from opposite party No.3, by sending his agent/employee Mr.Yograj, against bill/cash memo No.3046 dated 1.6.2006. Registration form for contract farming (Basmati and Sharbati Khariff 2006-07) with Sr.No.49 I.D. Bill. No.3046 dated 1.6.2006 was also got filled. He had sown the entire seed as per specifications, guidelines and instructions of the opposite parties. No seed/paneeri (sapling) was left with him. In the month of September, 2006, when the crop had grown up, he noticed plants of wild variety in it, which were tall in height and different in colouration. It was further noticed that the seed supplied by the opposite parties was not of pure quality and was rather adulterated one containing some seed of wild varieties. This variation could not be noticed earlier because the seed variety and the wild variety were similar and unidentifiable by a layman. The matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No.3 with the request to visit his fields and to pay compensation after making assessment but it did not care for it. He spent Rs.1,100/- per acre as labour charges for cutting away/removal of the wild plants from the crop and Rs.500/- for pouring extra pesticides as these wild varieties were more prone to plant diseases, but these could not be fully removed. He sent a legal notice through his counsel on 7.10.2006 to the opposite parties with First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 4 of 10 the request to pay compensation for the loss caused to him due to supply of poor quality of seed but to no effect. He, then, made a representation dated 7.10.2006 to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka for the inspection of his fields and assessment of the loss caused to him through some Government Agriculture Officer, whereupon Government Agriculture Officer visited the fields and made thorough inspection. He submitted his written report about the loss to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called both the parties i.e. himself and opposite party No.3 for further inquiry. Opposite party No.3 admitted the loss of approximately Rs.50,000/- to him due to the supply of defective seed by the opposite parties and assured that the matter would be taken up with opposite parties No.1 and 2. He further pleaded that the yield of his crop had fallen to just 14 ½ cwts. per acre against the claim of 24 cwts. per acre by opposite parties. Therefore, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay him a compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the loss caused to him alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.5,500/- for litigation charges.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply pleading therein that no agreement for contract farming had ever been signed between them and the complainant. He was not their consumer. M/s Shivnath Harnarain (India) Limited, New Delhi had manufactured the seed from whom the same was purchased by them but the said manufacturer has not been impleaded as a party to the First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 5 of 10 complaint. The report of the Agriculture Development Officer, Fazilka could not be relied upon as the said Agriculture Development Officer had prepared the report without giving any notice or an opportunity of hearing to them and the same had been prepared in connivance with the complainant. The complainant had not got the seed tested from the Government recognized laboratory and, as such, the complaint was not maintainable. It was, however, admitted that the seed was purchased by the agent of the complainant. They further pleaded that the registration form for contract farming was false and fabricated document. No assurance was given about the yield. The seed was to be sown in the presence of their employees and nursery plants were to be prepared under their supervision which was not done. No complaint was made to them by the complainant. The yield of the crop depends on many factors like; following of instructions, guidelines issued by the company, kind of soil, atmosphere, kind of water, etc. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, partly allowed the complaint in aforesaid terms.
7. Aggrieved by the order, both the parties have preferred these appeals.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the germination of the seed depends upon multiple factors such as First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 6 of 10 following of instructions and guidelines issued by the opposite parties, kind of soil, atmosphere, kind of water, etc. The complainant was not able to show that these guidelines or instructions were followed by him. It was not his case that no germination of the seed took place, rather his case is that he got less yield from the paddy seed. The same seed was sold to thousands of farmers but no other complaint was filed against them. The case has been decided in favour of the complainant on the report of ADO, Ex.C-16, wherein the loss of 25- 30% has been reported. The said report could not have been relied upon by the District Forum as the same was obtained in the absence of the opposite parties and none of its officials were associated. It was further argued that the complaint was filed on 30.10.2008 i.e. after a lapse of more than two years and, therefore, it was time barred. A specific objection was taken before the District Forum in this regard but no finding has been given by it on this specific issue. As per Section 13 of the Seed Act, the complainant was required to supply the seed to the District Forum for getting the same analyzed from the appropriate laboratory to check whether there was any defect in the seed or not. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
9. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant prayed for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the average crop yield of at least 24 cwts. per acre was assured by the opposite parties and it is an admitted and proved fact that yield of the complainant's crop had fallen to just 14½ cwts. per acre and hence there was a clear First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 7 of 10 cut loss of 43.20 cwts. in his 4 ½ acres of land. Applying the proposed purchase price of Rs.1,250/- per cwt., as assured by the opposite parties, the net loss is worked out to be Rs.54,000/-.
10. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The complainant has contended that he bought 30 kg. of seed from opposite party No.3 on 1.6.2006 against bill No.3046 (Ex.C-4) , which was sown by him in his 4 ½ acres of land. The purchase of the seed from opposite party No.3 has been duly admitted. The complainant noticed the variation in the size of the plants in the month of September, 2006. He brought the matter to the notice of the opposite parties but when they failed to respond, the matter was brought to the notice of SDM, Fazilka, who directed the District Agriculture Officer to visit the spot and submit his report. The report of the Assistant Cotton Extension Officer, Fazilka has been proved as Ex.C-15. In this report, it is stated that in the year 2006 contract farming was started by Markfed, Fazilka and Basmati PB-1121 was sown on their recommendations. On the receipt of complaint from various farmers, their fields, including those of complainant, were inspected and it was found that in the crop of Paddy PB-1121, plants of other varieties, having height higher than Basmati PB-1121, were noticed. It was further reported that taller plants were not having pouches (ears) containing grains. The loss in yield of paddy in respect of the complainant, Sh.Lakhpat Rai, was assessed as 25-30%. On First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 8 of 10 receipt of this report Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fazilka directed the Block Development Officer, Fazilka to compensate the complainant, vide letter dated 30.3.2007 (Ex.C-16).
12. The opposite parties have admitted the sale of seed to the complainant but have denied having reached any such contract with the complainant. Since the sale of seed of a standard variety i.e. PB- 1121 has been admitted, its yield was to be expected as per yield assured in the contract farming. Non-execution of an agreement between farmer and supplier has nothing to do with the fall in yield of a standard variety of seed. The complainant has stated in his affidavit that a yield of 24 cwts./acre was assured which has been denied by opposite parties but they have not stated what was the expected yield of Basmati PB-1121. The loss suffered by the complainant was brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties through legal notice dated 7.10.2006, the receipt of which was refused by opposite party No.3; which proves that they were running away from their responsibility. No document has been placed on record by the opposite parties to rebut the claim of the complainant duly supported by his affidavit. The only objection taken by them is that he was not a registered farmer under the contract farming. Once a Government agency sold the seed of a standard approved variety, they are liable to compensate the farmers for the short fall in yield than the expected yield on account of the defective seed. The complainant has placed on record the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari (Ex.C-2, C-3) in support of having sown the paddy in the 4½ acres of land. First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 9 of 10
13. From the above discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that the seed sold by the opposite party was not pure and in fact it was a mixed variety and, as such, was defective. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant. We further hold that the compensation allowed by the learned District Forum is on the lower side. Once the Assistant Cotton Extension Officer has reported that complainant suffered loss to the extent of 25-30%. The compensation to be awarded has to be based on this technical report. The average expected yield, claimed, was 24 cwts./acre. Accordingly, considering the loss to the crop @ 25%, net loss suffered by the complainant for 4½ acres comes to 27 cwts. The purchase price was Rs.1,200/- per cwt. Therefore, the total amount comes to Rs.1200x27 = Rs.32,400/-.
14. Since the complainant came to know about the poor quality of seed on the receipt of report of Assistant Cotton Extension Officer dated 30.10.2006, therefore, the complaint filed by him on 30.5.2008, is found to be within limitation.
15. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellants/opposite parties is dismissed.
16. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation is partly accepted and the order of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs.32,400/-.
17. The opposite parties deposited an amount of Rs.11,250/- in First Appeal No.338 of 2009 with this Commission at the time of First Appeal No. 338 of 2009 Page 10 of 10 filing the appeal. This amount alongwith interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry for payment to the complainant, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft, after expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum.
18. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 26.8.2013 and the orders were reserved. Now, the orders be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
20. Copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No. 336 of 2009 (Lakhpat Rai V/s Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. & ors.).
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER September 10, 2013 VINAY